Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“On the Organization of Products in German Design” Marion Godau (University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, Germany)
Our latest Editorial Board Member Prof. Dr. Marion Godau discusses
the interconnections between Design and Organisation from a German
Design History Perspective.
For sociologist Elfie Miklautz, objects are important for understanding the
world. She writes: “Communal reality is produced and judged with the
help of products. They contribute to the construction of an ordered,
comprehensible world and offer orientation” (1).
German design is often described as especially functional, clearly
structured and orderly. It could be said that German design is acutely
organized. In general Design is closely connected to:
• the organization of production sequences in manufacturing,
• the organization of the public perception of companies and
products,
• the organization of the usage of objects and
• the organization of objects themselves.
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
2
My essay provides various historical examples from German design. As a
product designer, my focus is on product design.
We will begin by travelling through time to the United States at the
beginning of the 20th century, because it is there that modern product
design gets its start.
Organization of Work
In 1880, the Americans Frederick Winslow Taylor and Lillian and Fred
Bunker Gilbreth conducted separate studies of factory operations.
They found that unnecessary movements and badly arranged tools caused
unnecessary strain on the worker thus resulting in inefficient production.
They argued that tools should never cause injuries, workers should be well
trained and the organization of work should be planned better.
Although Frederick Taylor first published his “Principles of Economic
Organization” in 1911, his theses and the investigations of the Gilbreths
were already known at the turn of the century. Businessman Henry Ford
was also aware of the studies by Taylor and the Gilbreths when he began
his work constructing the automobile at the beginning of the 20th century.
Representing a break from prior practice, the automobile was not
intended exclusively for the wealthy. Instead, his vehicle was to be
produced as a mass automobile for everyone (2). The Ford Motor
Company, established in 1903, wanted its first finished product to be low-‐
priced and outfitted with a sufficiently powerful motor. The material was
to be of suitable quality and hardiness so that America’s car could survive,
as long as possible, the roads of the day, which were as a rule still quite
rough.
In 1909, Ford produced the first version of the “Model T” without a roof or
side panels. It had two forward gears and one reverse gear. Ford’s
development was an immediate sensation. The original “Model T” was
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
3
soon joined by convertible and sedan versions and even a spacious touring
car. “Lizzy,” as the “Model T” was also known, was extremely popular.
[The 1914 Ford Model T touring car was the first version built on
Henry Ford's moving assembly line; Ford Motor Co./AP]
In order to satisfy exploding demand, Ford drew on Taylor’s research and
in 1913 introduced the assembly line, at first only in targeted areas and
then throughout the wider business. Up to that point, groups of workers
had assembled the car in one area. Now, the individual parts passed by
workers on the line and were assembled piece by piece. The entire
production process was now be subjected to the desire for stagnation-‐free
circulation. Effectively, the assembly line represented an enormous uptick
in productivity. At the same time, the sale price could be lowered ever
further.
Conditions for Problem-‐free Assembly
Together with more efficient production methods, the standardization and
high manufacturing accuracy of the materials were further preconditions
for Ford’s mass production. Without the established, normalized
measurements of the tools and machines and a consistent quality of
material, there could be no guarantee that the constituent parts, which
were often produced separately, would fit together. As a result, they could
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
4
also be exchanged for replacement parts at a later date. This principle
survives to this day.
Henry Ford understood that customer desires could be fulfilled with
relatively little effort by establishing just a few product types (convertible,
sedan, etc.) varying only in single elements. It took decades, however, for
the principles of streamlining, normalization, standardization and
categorization to become common property of production technology. Still
today, there are elements of this trend requiring a great deal of
refinement. Nevertheless, following Henry Ford, product designers now
have to include the production processes within the companies for which
they work in their plans and sketches.
The Organization of Modernity – Peter Behrens and the AEG
We will return to Ford’s assembly line later, but first, I would like to
discuss the world’s first example of a unified corporate design.
Between 1907 and 1914, Peter Behrens, a German autodidact, completed
his efforts to give AEG, then an electrical company in its infancy, a unified
image and appearance. He redesigned the entire product range and also
designed factory buildings and showrooms. Not only was Behrens’s
accomplishment in design impressive, but also his analytic and
organizational work as well.
AEG was founded in 1883 by Emil Rathenau and was originally named the
German Edison-‐Society (Deutsche Edison-‐Gesellschaft). Four years later, in
1887, the company’s name became “General Electricity-‐Society”
(Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-‐Gesellschaft or AEG).
By the end of the 19th century, the fledgling electrical industry was
booming. AEG provided pioneering work in the area of alternating current
transmission systems; it expanded and soon produced many types of
electrotechnical investment and consumer goods, such as light bulbs,
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
5
home appliances, street lighting, trams and turbines for power plants.
Though these technologies and the organization of production are
impressive, design was a completely separate issue.
Founder Emil Rathenau recognized this and invited Peter Behrens to
Berlin in 1907. Within seven years, Behrens reinvented the entire product
range, designed catalogs, advertisements and new company buildings.
He modernized obsolete forms by creating a new, unadorned design. He
slimmed down the product range and streamlined individual equipment
component parts. Behrens thought in building blocks or components, that
is, interchangeable forms, materials and surfaces.
[Montagehalle AEG-‐Turbinenfabrik in Berlin-‐Moabit (1927); ©Siemens.com]
AEG managed to achieve a modern aesthetic and not only for isolated
products, but for everything. The modernity of technology and modes of
production were to be expressed through a design that was
correspondingly advanced. This advanced design was then in turn
supposed to reverberate back to the company.
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
6
Through Behrens’s systematic and modern aesthetic, AEG achieved a
significant image advantage over its competition. Despite new products,
the latter’s products suddenly came off as dated and retrograde.
Following this digression into corporate design, let us now take up
Taylor’s assembly line once again.
The Assembly Line at Home – the Frankfurt Kitchen
Around 1880, Frederick W. Taylor and Lillian and Fred Bunker Gilbreth,
working in the USA independently of one another, explored factory work
and thus paved the way for both the mechanized assembly line and
contract work. In the 1920s, the Viennese architect Grete Schütte-‐Lihotzky
applied this principle to the residential sphere. She understood living and
cooking as a production process operating within the division of labor. Her
so-‐called “Frankfurt kitchen” was organized like a factory workplace in
which various task sequences were arranged efficiently. These innovations
brought Schütte-‐Lihotzky world renown. As described in American studies
on operational economics, the Viennese architect created work areas
oriented along the walls of the kitchen. The floor space of the room
measured no more than 6.65 square meters. The kitchen table
disappeared. The then newly developed gas oven arrived and saved space.
Every corner was used for specific functions in a specific order. Consider,
for example, dishwashing: “take from the left, wash on the right, deposit to
the left.” Schütte-‐Lihotzky’s kitchen organization was well thought-‐out
down to minute details. There were easily cleanable work surfaces, a
space-‐saving swivel chair, an unfolding ironing board and an oak drawer
intended for protecting bread from worm infestation. Everything was
covered in whites and blues, intended to come off as hygienic. The blues
were also supposed to deter flies.
To this day, in Germany Schütte-‐Lihotzky’s elaborate kitchen unit
workplaces have remained the model for built-‐in kitchens in public
housing.
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
7
[Frankfurter Küche, 1926 (links), Margarete Schütte-‐Lihotzky und Kollegen (rechts);
© Universität für angewandte Kunst Wien, Kunstsammlung und Archiv]
The Component Principle and Bauhaus
Similar to Grete Schütte-‐Lihotzky, numerous artists, designers and
architects in Germany around 1920 cultivated a zeal for machines.
Industry stood for progress and many saw the machine as a possibility for
providing the lower classes with affordable goods. An example of this
phenomenon is the still legendary Bauhaus, established in Weimar in
1919. As was the case with Ford, its focus was on production for mass
demand.
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
8
Around 1922, teachers and students at the Bauhaus experimented in the
ceramic workshop, which had traditionally been oriented towards
handcrafts, with possibilities for efficient production, e.g. in modular
design. Individual components were to be combined in various ways in
order to achieve a wealth of variants with only a few parts.
Examples of this can be found in the work of Theodor Bogler and Marianne
Brandt (3). Bogler visited the “Velten-‐Vordmann” earthenware factories
near Berlin in 1923 and became acquainted there with the industrialized
ceramic production process. He was inspired to create what is probably
his most famous design series: the various models of his combination
teapot. Bogler dissected the archetype of the teapot down to its
constituent elements: body, opening, spout and handle. He reduced them
to basic stereometric forms. Then, for a “manufactured mass molding,” (4)
he systemically went through all the various combinational possibilities of
the created components. All elements were not rotated on a wheel as had
previously been the norm at Bauhaus, but were instead individually
molded and then, in a further step, assembled in various combinations.
Thus, with only a few basic elements, numerous teapot variations were
created.
Bauhaus teacher Marianne Brandt in turn applied this component concept
to numerous projects, namely to pitchers and lights.
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
9
[Herbert Lindinger: Hifi-‐Baukastensystem, 1958 (Diplomarbeit); Hansgugelot.com]
System Design at the Ulm School of Design
Barely 30 years later, the positive possibilities of technological
advancement had become the guiding principle for the new and mostly
young generations of designers. Among those affirming the industrial
production process was the legendary Ulm School of Design (Hochschule
für Gestaltung or hfg Ulm), which dedicated itself to the preliminary work
for the industry. Students were supposed to learn how “to incorporate
their own work into the larger economy and form it according to their
economic functions” (5). It is not surprising that, like their instructors, the
students focused on the question of how mechanical serial production
could be further perfected through corresponding design. The favored
solution was referred to as system design. An example of this can be found
in the school’s “Industrial Construction” division, which turned out
prefabricated structural shells and standardized connecting elements. The
“Product Design” division crafted furniture systems in the fashion of
prefabricated constructions, high fidelity modular design systems and
even sanitary blocks, all following from the premise of efficient production
and the most boundless variance possible. Hans (Nick) Roericht, a student
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
10
at the school transferred this systemic thought to the design of dishware in
his 1958-‐59 dissertation. He accomplished this by creating a stackable
hotel dishware set, something previously uncommon. Roericht reduced
the dish set down to only a few pieces and assigned them multiple
functions:
coasters could also be used as lids, salad bowls could double as sugar
bowls or soup bowls. Roericht’s design thereby simplified the organization
of food service, the operation of which had previously been quite time
consuming.
Up to this point, we have seen examples of the organization of families and
systems of products.
[Nick Roericht: Hotel-‐Stapelgeschirr TC 100, 1958/1959 für Fa. Thomas / Rosenthal AG]
Dieter Rams’s Radio “RT 20”
The textbook examples for the organization of various functions within the
product emerged at the same time, namely, the electrical appliances of Braun
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
11
AG. Dieter Rams, the factory designer for Braun, was heavily influenced by
the ideas of the Ulm School of Design, notably by the ideas in product
systems, categorization, modular designs and system design. As in Ulm, Rams
understood function and beauty as measurable quantities. That which could
be mathematically defined and clearly outlined and arranged counted as
beautiful by default (per se). Rams reduced his drafts to the absolute
necessities like the students and teachers of the Ulm School of Design. He also
made use of the methodology developed in Ulm of focusing on the
presentation of a problem and not, at least at first, on how the product was to
look. Ulm’s methodology also comprised methods of analysis and the logical
justification of design solutions.
All of this can be recognized in Dieter Rams’s “RT 20” radio:
The radio is divided into two symmetrical halves. On one side is the speaker
“trellis” and on the other the controls and dial. The speaker openings on the
left are made up of thin parallel beam openings. There are cut in such a way
that their overall form results in a circle. A strip in the middle serves to
stabilize the opening.
The radio’s dials and controls are on the right side of the front. They are
arranged at right angles to one another and are made up of rows of knobs of
various sizes that follow a clear operational hierarchy.
The Organization of Switches – GIRA
The streamlining of the industrial production process through standardized
components or modules for product systems has had a long tradition in
Germany. The simplification of components still continues to be perfected
today. An example of this is GIRA, a producer of electrical installation
systems.
Founded in 1905, GIRA at first produced toggle switches and safeguarding
elements. Today, GIRA’s offerings range far beyond simple light switches and
grounded electrical sockets. With the advent of image transmission,
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
12
microelectronics has made it possible to know who is standing outside the
front door. With a smartphone, one can access home technology while in
transit.
In 1998, the company revised its product offerings along the lines of
consistent system design. The goal behind this was both, to save costs for
storage and logistics as well as to be able to offer a large selection of products.
The individual apparatuses each consist of an interior part and a covering.
The interior disappears in conventional concealed junction boxes and the
covering can be combined with various frames. They can be disposed of in
single-‐stream recycling systems. GIRA concentrates on only a few product
programs that are integrated into product systems. The company refers to
this system design as the platform strategy. Similar to current automobile
construction, various program variants can be subsumed under a single basic
platform.
[GIRA, Switch, System 55; Gira.com]
GIRA’s “System 55,” newly introduced in 1998, served as a platform for four
distinctly designed switch programs with its more than 180 different central
elements in a choice of three colors. These switch lines are called “Standard
55,” “E2,” “Event” and “Esprit.” The selection ranges from grounded electrical
sockets as well as integrated childproofing and telephone connections to
concealed radios. The four program lines are available in diverse material
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
13
and color variations. In total, GIRA has produced several thousand different
products that can be freely combined through the “System 55” operational
system, together with “Standard 55,” “E2,” “Event” and “Esprit.” In this way, a
huge number of aesthetic solutions is made possible by organizing and
combining only a few standardized components.
If the context is changed at a later day, for example out of issues of taste, the
corresponding frames and covers are easily exchangeable.
In comparison, non-‐compatible model-‐series would demand more machines,
more logistical expenditure and also more storage space than would an
intelligent platform or system structure.
In 1995, GIRA developed a new generation of switches concurrently with a
new switch assembly line. The number of switch components was reduced
yet further, so that it now functioned even more efficiently. The principle of
variant reduction is driven ever forward. Currently, GIRA is aiming to offer
various materials for its frames in order to achieve a larger selection with the
same design and the same components. Thus there are frames made of
linoleum, shale, glass and concrete.
As the examples have shown, organizing design is of great importance and
will be driven forward and ever more sophisticated. This happens mainly
on account of economical reasons. In addition, rationalization,
standardization and system design are helping us, according to Elfie
Miklautz’ reckoning at the outset, to organize and control our often chaotic
world, and offer us orientation. Given today’s degree of organization we
ought to feel quite secure indeed...
Marion Godau*, November 2016
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
14
References (1) Elfie Miklautz: Die Produktwelt als symbolische Form. In: König, Gudrun M. (Hg.): Alltagsdinge.
Erkundungen der materiellen Kultur. Tübinger Vereinigung für Volkskunde, Tübingen 2005, S. 43.
(2) Adrian Forty: Objects of Desire. Design and Society since 1750. New York 1992, S.122f.
(3) Klaus Weber (Hg.) für das Bauhaus-‐Archiv: Keramik und Bauhaus. Berlin 1989, S. 60.
(4) ebd., S. 61
(5) Eva von Seckendorff: Die Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. Gründung (1949-‐1953) und Ära Max
Bill (1953-‐1957). Marburg 1989, S.44
Further Literature (Selection)
Volker Albus, Reyer Kras, Jonathan M. Woodham (Hg.): Design! Das 20.
Jahrhundert. München, London, New York o.J.
Bauhaus-‐Archiv Museum für Gestaltung (Hg.): Experiment Bauhaus.
Berlin 1988
Bauhaus-‐Archiv Museum für Gestaltung (Hg.), Magdalena Droste:
Bauhaus 1919-‐1933. Köln 1990
Jeannine Fiedler, Peter Feierabend (Hg.): Bauhaus. Köln 1999
FSB, GIRA, KEUCO, SSS Siedle (Hg.): Berührungspunkte. Dortmund 2000
Raymond Guidot: Design, Stuttgart 1994
Herbert Lindinger (Hg.): ulm… Die Moral der Gegenstände. Berlin 1991, 2.
Aufl.
Monte von DuMont (Hg.): Auf einen Blick: Design: Von der industriellen
Revolution bis zum 21. Jahrhundert. Köln 2001
Wolfgang Schepers, Peter Schmitt (Hg.): Das Jahrhundert des Designs.
Geschichte und Zukunft der Dinge. Frankfurt am Main 2000
Penny Sparke: Design im 20. Jahrhundert. Die Eroberung des Alltags durch
die Kunst. Stuttgart 1999
Translation german -‐> english: John Benjamin:
DESIGNABILITIES Journal | November 2016 www.designabilities.org
15
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
* Prof. Dr. Marion Godau, is a german Design Historian and a Professor
for Design-‐, Culture-‐ and Art History at the University of Applied Sciences
Potsdam (FHP). She joined the DESIGNABILITES Family in 2016.
© 2016: Marion Godau, DESIGNABILITIES Design Research Journal
Authors retain the rights to their articles, which are published by DESIGNABILITIES Design Research
Journal with their permission. Any use of these materials provide proper citation to the author and
DESIGNABILITIES.
Citation Information:
Godau, Marion (2016): On the Organization of Products in German Design; DESIGNABILITIES Design
Research Journal, November 30, 2016. https://designabilities.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/3020/.